Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

fabric-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

aci_epg_segment

Resolve an ACI EPG's bridge domain, VRF, and contract filters by name. Identifies unenforced VRFs and unformed relations, listing findings with causes and actions for troubleshooting.

Instructions

[READ] An ACI EPG's segment: bridge domain, VRF and contracts, by name.

Follows EPG → BD → VRF through the relations APIC resolved (cross-tenant
links into 'common' included) and expands the contracts the EPG provides
and consumes down to filter entries. Use it when you know the EPG but not
an endpoint in it.

A relation that is not 'formed' is reported as a finding with its state; a
read that failed is null with an entry in 'errors' (not empty — say it was
not read). An unenforced VRF means contracts do not restrict traffic in it.
'notChecked' lists what is not evaluated (vzAny, taboo, imported
contracts, preferred-group peers, service graphs).

Args:
    tenant: Tenant name (e.g. 'tenant-A').
    app: Application profile name.
    epg: EPG name.
    target: Target name from config (must be 'platform: aci').

Returns dict: {epg, bd, vrf, contracts:{contracts, returned, limit,
    truncated, filters, filtersTruncated, complete}, segmentResolved,
    notChecked,
    findings:[{rank, severity, signal, cause, action}], errors}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYes
epgYes
targetNo
tenantYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation ('[READ]') and describes behavior on failure: 'a read that failed is null with an entry in 'errors''. It explains the meaning of unenforced VRFs and the 'notChecked' list. It also indicates that non-formed relations are reported as findings. While it doesn't detail auth requirements or rate limits, it provides substantial behavioral context for a complex tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed but not bloated. It front-loads the core purpose and key caveats. The structured list of args and the return dict format at the end are efficient. A couple of phrases like 'say it was not read' are slightly informal but add clarity. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly without loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is complex (multiple parameters, nested return dict, findings and errors). The description covers the return structure comprehensively, which is helpful given no output schema. However, the parameter descriptions are minimal, and the description lacks specifics on error formats or how to interpret findings' fields. Given the complexity, it's somewhat incomplete but adequate for a read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but useful context for each parameter: tenant (with example 'tenant-A'), app (application profile name), epg (EPG name), and target (must be 'platform: aci'). However, it doesn't explain the full format of 'target' beyond the example, and 'tenant' and 'app' are only hinted. But given the low coverage, this is a strong effort, and the definitions are clear enough for an agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with '[READ]' and clearly states the resource (ACI EPG's segment) and what it does: follows EPG → BD → VRF relations and expands contracts to filter entries. It names specific components (bridge domain, VRF, contracts) and differentiates from siblings like aci_endpoint_trace by stating 'Use it when you know the EPG but not an endpoint in it.' This is a specific verb-resource combo with clear scoping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use it when you know the EPG but not an endpoint in it.' This implicitly differentiates from sibling aci_endpoint_trace, which likely handles endpoint-based queries. It also provides context on what to expect (read failures, unenforced VRFs) and lists what is not evaluated (notChecked). The guidance is explicit and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools